Why Young People Are Marrying Less: Independence, Cost of Living and the Challenge of Commitment

Why are young people no longer getting married? The answer lies neither in a supposed inability to love nor in a simple lack of effort. Marriage has not disappeared, but it holds a less central place in life paths. It is now possible to live as a couple, have children, buy property, separate or remain together for the long term without getting married.

The figures often cited illustrate this change: France is said to have gone from more than 416,000 marriages in 1972 to around 250,000 in 2025. The marriage rate is therefore said to have fallen from 8.1 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants to 3.7. A slight annual upturn is not enough to erase a long-term trend: marriage no longer automatically marks the transition into adulthood.

This decline should not be confused with a uniform rejection of life as a couple. Many young people still want a stable relationship, sometimes children and a home. But the conditions under which they view commitment have changed profoundly.

Marriage is no longer a material necessity

Historically, marriage was also an economic and social institution. It governed the transfer of property, children’s family ties, the organization of domestic work, daily mutual support and alliances between families. This reality did not necessarily make past unions happy or equal: forced marriages, economic dependence and unspoken violence also existed.

However, material interdependence between partners was stronger. Today, a woman can live from her work, manage her assets and raise a child without being married. Men, for their part, also have domestic independence and consumer options that reduce the practical need to share a household.

This development is first and foremost a gain in freedom. In particular, it means that a person should not have to remain in a dangerous or humiliating relationship for lack of resources. However, when a couple is no longer based on economic necessity, its longevity depends more heavily on trust, dialogue, fidelity, the ability to get through difficult periods and a project chosen together.

A culture of permanent options

Dating apps, social media and digital content can create the impression that a better option is always within reach. The problem is not the existence of these tools, nor meeting someone online. It arises when comparison becomes constant and every frustration is interpreted as proof that one should start looking elsewhere again.

A lasting relationship nevertheless includes less flattering moments: tiredness, disagreements, financial difficulties, illness, a drop in desire, the arrival of a child or responsibilities connected with ageing parents. None of these factors justifies putting up with coercive control, insults or violence. It is essential to distinguish a genuinely destructive relationship from an ordinary period of tension or discomfort.

This distinction requires perspective. Very short messages circulated online can wrongly turn every conflict into a “red flag,” every need for space into abandonment, or every disagreement into manipulation. Conversely, some content trivializes distrust of women or men and presents a couple as a permanent power struggle. Such generalizations fuel a gender war that makes trust more difficult.

Strong relationships do not require denying cultural, family or personal differences. They require discussing them without reducing the other person to their gender or background. In this area, love does not remove the need for consent, respect or dialogue.

The pursuit of fulfilment and the difficulty of giving things up

The contemporary couple is often assessed through individual fulfilment: am I happy, valued, desired, understood? These questions are legitimate. They have made it possible to challenge the idea that people should remain married at all costs, even at the expense of their safety or dignity.

But commitment also involves an element of giving things up. It does not mean finding a perfect person, nor never again noticing someone attractive or interesting. It means choosing a relationship and not constantly questioning that choice because a theoretical possibility appears more appealing.

This ability is difficult to cultivate in an environment organized around novelty: a new product, new content, a new profile, a new distraction. Fidelity, patience and repairing conflicts do not produce the same immediate effect as constant novelty. Yet they remain essential to building an intimacy that can withstand time.

The weight of housing, employment and family planning

The decline in marriage cannot be analysed without taking material conditions into account. According to the information cited, the ratio between property prices and household incomes remained, in 2022, far above its level at the beginning of the 2000s. Access to homeownership therefore requires greater effort for some young households.

Housing costs, job instability, precarious contracts and difficulties leaving the parental home can delay moving in together, marriage or the arrival of a child. When it is difficult to predict one’s income, rent or place of residence in the medium term, it becomes more complicated to consider a loan, a ceremony or a family.

The data mentioned also point to around 644,000 births in France in 2025 and a total fertility rate of around 1.56 children per woman. These developments cannot be explained by economics alone: career aspirations, the age at which people have their first child and the choice not to have children also matter. But it would be reductive to blame young people for a lack of planning when they face more uncertain conditions for planning ahead.

Fear of separation and the legal framing of couples

For some people, marriage is also viewed through the risk of separation. The division of assets, compensatory payments, child support, arrangements for children’s residence and possible legal disputes can create a precautionary mindset even before the union is celebrated.

These legal mechanisms nevertheless serve a purpose: preventing a spouse who has reduced or interrupted their career, particularly to care for children, from being left without resources after a separation. A compensatory payment is intended to offset a disparity in living standards created by divorce; it is not an automatic penalty for wrongdoing.

The paradox is that protections intended to make separation fairer can fuel, for some, a view of marriage as a risk-management operation. Prenuptial agreements, separate accounts and protection of assets can be reasonable choices. However, they cannot replace an honest discussion about money, an agreement on career sacrifices or trust built over time.

Family models and emotional vulnerabilities

Family paths also matter. In 2023, 67% of minors lived with both parents in a so-called traditional family, 23% in a single-parent family and 10% in a blended family, according to the data mentioned. These circumstances do not determine a child’s emotional future: growing up with one parent does not condemn anyone to instability, just as living with two parents does not guarantee a peaceful future relationship.

Research on the intergenerational transmission of relationship instability nevertheless suggests that family experiences can affect the ways people form attachments and handle conflict. A highly conflictual parental relationship can be as significant as a separation. The issue, then, is not to blame families, but to recognize that people can learn to communicate better, tolerate frustration and seek help when fears of abandonment or avoidance take over.

Preserving a personal life does not mean fleeing all closeness. A balanced relationship can precisely combine presence, independence and stability, as shown by the importance of respected personal space within a relationship.

Independence or isolation: a distinction not to confuse

Valuing independence responds to a real need: no one should depend entirely on a partner in order to exist. But independence is not isolation. The World Health Organization estimates that around one in six people worldwide experience loneliness, with particularly high levels among adolescents and young adults.

Loneliness and social isolation are associated with increased risks to mental and physical health. This does not mean that marriage is a treatment for depression, nor that being single is a failure. A single person can be surrounded by others and fulfilled, while a married person can be deeply lonely. The issue is rather the quality of connections: family, friends, neighbours, community and partners.

A stable family or social network can pool resources, support people through unemployment or illness, pass on knowledge and help raise children. This does not justify treating every union as sacred. It simply reminds us that lasting bonds have a social value that goes beyond consumption and the image of the perfect couple.

Building a chosen commitment

The question, therefore, is not to restore a model in which divorce would be shameful, women would be economically dependent on men, or difficulties would have to remain unspoken. It is about understanding how to make commitment possible in a society that often encourages people to keep every door open.

A lasting couple rests less on an abstract promise than on concrete practices: discussing expectations, housing, money, children, fidelity, the division of chores and relationships with families. It also rests on the ability to set clear boundaries against coercive control. The partners’ background or the form of the relationship never protects against violence; safety, consent and autonomy must always remain priorities.

Young people do not necessarily reject love or family. They live in a context in which protections, freedoms, economic constraints and digital pressures are profoundly redefining the meaning of marriage. The challenge is less about going backwards than about rebuilding reference points of trust, responsibility and solidarity that are compatible with the freedoms that have been gained.

FAQ: marriage and commitment among young people

Do young people really no longer want to live as a couple?

No. The decline in marriage does not mean a general rejection of life as a couple. Many couples live together, have children or build projects without getting married.

Why does the cost of living influence marriage?

Expensive housing, uncertain incomes and difficulty planning ahead can delay decisions involving a shared home, a loan or the arrival of a child.

Do social media destroy couples?

They do not determine the future of a relationship on their own. However, constant comparison, polarized discourse and the emphasis on conflict can weaken trust and people’s perception of relationships.